Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391481]

Where do I begin, continual hints that you know something no one else does, but nothing to back it up
However you have been doing that for a year now, give or take a few days.

Well, it takes time. But it doesnīt take 128 years or even 32 years. If you want to know something about the research I am doing and have done, we will probably have a discussion about that this autumn. Because I do not intend to go on with this piece of research for a long time.

Swanson quotes him, I take that as such, if you do not, that is your choice. However it is a personal choice.

No, Steve. It is not a "personal choice". It is not a matter of taste. It is an historical choice, since the historical facts are that

1) We do not have any primary source with the statements of Lawende and

2) Swanson was working for the police. And who would have had interest in withholding information from the press and the public? The police.

Comment: Historians would say that the source you are referring to has a tendency.

3) Swanson had a high position and was working close to Anderson and Macnaghten.

Comment: They had what sociologists call social capital and this type of capital is protected by those who own it. This means that they protect eachother and the institution which gives them their capital, of which an important part is their own positions and another important part is the legitimacy of the police as an institution.

4) Anderson tried to give the public the impression that the "suspect" was a specific type of person.

Comment A): This is the tendency of Anderson in the source he has created.

Comment B): Anderson knew Monro well.

5) Swanson tried to strenghten the impression given by Anderson.

Comment B: This is the tendency of Swanson in a copy of the same source.

Comment C: The two close "friends" have the same tendency. The tendency is connected to their motives: 1) to protect their own positions, 2) to protect their institutions and 3) eachother.

6) Macnaghten wanted to give the same impression to the public in his book as did the other two.

Comment: This is one tendency in his book.

7) Macnaghten had a social bond to a well known family who could never have accepted to be connected to the author of the Whitechapel murders.

Comment: Macnaghten was a friend of Monro.

8) There may have been information given by a woman in that particular family to Anderson (the Crawford letter). We do not know if that is the casae, since the police would never have disclosed her name if her information was connected to the author of the Whitechapel murders.

9) A man was at a seaside home far away from London a couple of years after the murders stopped.

10) Swanson wanted the public to believe that the man was Kosminski.

We do not need any, otherwise we apply it to everybody in the case.
This is not based on analysis it is just blind intransigence!
We also have Swanson's report.
Sorry Pierre
I can see only one reason for this approach , that is Lawende does not describe what you want, so you question his ability to report what he saw.

Well, as you can see, we do not need any "Lawende", and neither did they.

That is not how I was taught to perform scientific research

You are in the natural sciences and you are not an historian or sociologist. We have two different fields.

we are not talking about Arnold or Lechmere, but Lawende, and what he told the police he saw.
In addition we are talking about the description of clothing, please refrain from attempting to muddy the waters

If you are "not talking about Arnold or Lechmere", that is your business. But the business of the past is to leave sources to us and the business of historians is to reasearch those sources.

Yes you do not have an answer!
You must have the reasoning before you dispute what Lawende says or question his ability.

You appear not to have such!

I do not find your explanation probable in the slightest, sorry I am afraid I cannot accept the reply.

That is fine with me, Steve. I do not want to "convince" anyone. I am not even convinced myself. I ask questions and try hypotheses.

No Pierre, you are questioning if a man could accurately describe the clothing another man he saw was wearing. You have given no sensible reason for such a view.

Your attempts to wriggle out of this are truly hilarious for any serious scientist viewing.

It is a fact that we do not know the dress of the man or what Lawende thought he saw. I donīt think you find it "hilarious", you are just using a bad expression sometimes used by others to eachother in the forum, an expression you yourself would say is used just for lack of better arguments.

I have no idea, but then I am not an expert on inquests?
Others here certainly are, and give reasons for the withholding of information.

Amen.

Unfortunately those reason do not fit your theory, so we have invention to fill the void.

More important your hypnosis is that this was highly unusual; do you have data to back that idea, a simple yes or no will do?

I was asking you a question about how frequent witholding information was. You did not answer it. And I have never made any study of that.

But perhaps we could point to some research about corruption in the juridical system? Do your "experts" here know some research?

Because the Police wanted it withheld, you do not know why? nor do I, others here have given rational reasons, which you will not listen to.

You have it above.

Oh Pierre,

for instance if he was dressed in a uniform of some sort one would assume that he may have been in that line of work of the uniform; at least that he had access to the uniform.
You know exactly what I mean, why do you answer like this, it is such a waste of time

Why do you assume that "access" would have been an issue? For example, how did he get "access" to the murder victims?

Swanson reports it, so one assumes it comes either from Lawende directly to Swanson, or more probably as the result of a interview given by Lawende to other police officials.

Put Swanson in his social network and you will see interesting things.

Swanson's report is official.
I said above it could be a direct interview with Lawende by Swanson, or a reporting of an earlier interview.

Of course it is. It is very official indeed. So everyone can see it.

Your pronouncement that no primary source exists is open to much debate, yet you state it as fact.

When I have the time, I will write a short text here about why the statement of Swanson is not part of an original primary source for the statement of Lawende.

The problem is you see the inquest, which was public, as the only primary source, Why?

I donīt. I will get back to this. Please remind me if I forget it.

Lawende must have been interviewed by the police before the inquest, why do you not understand that?

Yes, of course he was. Otherwise they would not have withheld the information.

What made you think I did not think so?

Such an interview would of course be primary source, Swanson reports such information.

There is no reason to assume anything else

As I said, I will get back to this

At last an answer.

They withheld for reasons which you are not aware of, neither am I.
Once again others here have given you plausible reasons, however you refuse to accept them, such is your right.

Se above again. There you have some of it.

However such a refusal means that you can progress no further scientifically, any thing else is superposition.

Unless of course you have a source which confirms your view point?

Do you?

I think I do.

Once again we have your mystery sources.

As one scientist to another it is about time you understood if you cannot provide details of such sources it is common scientific practice to assume no such sources exist.

There is no mystery. Some of the sources have not been reachable before. Very simple. And no one obviously bothered to research them.

It is common knowledge that the "Sailor Description" is not accurate?

Please back that statement up.

Common knowledge is not my knowledge. Do a study of the provenance of the "sailor idea". Use the newspapers and compare dates and espressions. It might be interesting.

It is certainly not common knowledge that Lawende gave inaccurate information, that is what we are talking about.

Steve

No, certainly not. And I do not confess to the Church of the Common Knowledge. Terrible, isnīt it?

[Pierre]

Tell me this, Pierre.

How many of the murder inquests were attended by Mr Crawford on behalf of the City of London Police?

Was it frequent, Pierre?

If you tell us this, David.

At how many murder inquests did Crawford see to it that information was withheld in court?

Was is frequent, David?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

And may I ask what "lots" is defined as, by you?

Where do I begin, continual hints that you know something no one else does, but nothing to back it up
However you have been doing that for a year now, give or take a few days.
.

There is no statement about the dress of the man given by Lawende in any original primary source.

Swanson quotes him, I take that as such, if you do not, that is your choice.
However it is a personal choice.

I mean what I say and say what I mean. We (you and me for example) do not know anything (we have no scientific knowledge) about his ability to interpret what he saw.

We do not need any, otherwise we apply it to everybody in the case.


This is not based on analysis it is just blind intransigence!

So what do we know? We know what he said in the inquest source. And we know what some journalists wrote about what was said at the inquest.

We also have Swanson's report.

And if we want to hypothesize about Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw, all we can do is hypothesize that he thought he saw something. Not that he did see it. What I do here is I follow Kant. But that is too radical, in a way. It is sufficient to say that Lawende had no camera with him. And as we know, even the products of a camera are interpretable (remember the discussions about the Kelly photographs for example).

Sorry Pierre
I can see only one reason for this approach , that is Lawende does not describe what you want, so you question his ability to report what he saw.

That is not how I was taught to perform scientific research

Well, if he thought he sa,w a type A5 it might as well have been a type A8 which was very similar to the A5. Or it might have been a B1 type. Different types of appearances. You know, like different types of militaries. If you read the statements of Arnold, for example, what type is he describing? He changed his statements. And Lechmere, why did he lie one time and then lie again - about the same phenomenon? What can we know about this?

we are not talking about Arnold or Lechmere, but Lawende, and what he told the police he saw.
In addition we are talking about the description of clothing, please refrain from attempting to muddy the waters

That is a VERY good question, Steve! As usual, you contribute. I will think about this question and try to answer it when I have something substantial to say.




OK, so why did I not do that? Good question. Lechmere saw a woman lying on the street. Arnold heard a person telling him about a murder. Lawende did not experience an event connected to any crime at the moment he experienced the sighting. So it was not 1+1 like in the case of Lechmere (if you notice his statement) and Arnold. It was 1+0 or 0+1. (And here I happened to answer your question already!).

Yes you do not have an answer!
You must have the reasoning before you dispute what Lawende says or question his ability.

You appear not to have such!

Absolutely not. And as you see there was an explanation for it! (Which I wrote before I read your last two lines!).

I do not find your explanation probable in the slightest, sorry I am afraid I cannot accept the reply.

No, that is not what I say. I say that we have the sources we have and they are of some value. But read above and you will see exactly what I mean.

No Pierre, you are questioning if a man could accurately describe the clothing another man he saw was wearing. You have given no sensible reason for such a view.

Your attempts to wriggle out of this are truly hilarious for any serious scientist viewing.

So in how many cases did they withhold descriptions of how people were dressed at the murder inquests?

Was it frequent, Steve?

I have no idea, but then I am not an expert on inquests?
Others here certainly are, and give reasons for the withholding of information. Unfortunately those reason do not fit your theory, so we have invention to fill the void.

More important your hypnosis is that this was highly unusual; do you have data to back that idea, a simple yes or no will do?

Of course. So why withhold the statement?

Because the Police wanted it withheld, you do not know why? nor do I, others here have given rational reasons, which you will not listen to.

I see what you mean. Why would it have been "easier" because or if the dress was "distinctive"?

Maybe it was distinctive for other purposes.

Oh Pierre,

for instance if he was dressed in a uniform of some sort one would assume that he may have been in that line of work of the uniform; at least that he had access to the uniform.
You know exactly what I mean, why do you answer like this, it is such a waste of time

But Steve, the provenance is not at all clear.

And there is no statement about the dress given by Lawende in any primary original source.

Swanson reports it, so one assumes it comes either from Lawende directly to Swanson, or more probably as the result of a interview given by Lawende to other police officials.

Swanson's report is official.
I said above it could be a direct interview with Lawende by Swanson, or a reporting of an earlier interview.

Your pronouncement that no primary source exists is open to much debate, yet you state it as fact.

The problem is you see the inquest, which was public, as the only primary source, Why?

Lawende must have been interviewed by the police before the inquest, why do you not understand that?
Such an interview would of course be primary source, Swanson reports such information.

There is no reason to assume anything else

I donīt think the man was dressed like a "sailor". No. Why would they withhold that in the courtroom?

At last an answer.

They withheld for reasons which you are not aware of, neither am I.
Once again others here have given you plausible reasons, however you refuse to accept them, such is your right.

However such a refusal means that you can progress no further scientifically, any thing else is superposition.

Unless of course you have a source which confirms your view point?

Do you?

What I think is based on entirely different sources. The silencing in court is just explained by those sources. And that is funny, I think. It might be spurious. But it has explanatory value, so that is why I am discussing Lawende.

Once again we have your mystery sources.


As one scientist to another it is about time you understood if you cannot provide details of such sources it is common scientific practice to assume no such sources exist.

You can call it "false". I say that the past leaves us with sources that we do not always understand.

Game playing again.

I donīt need a source for that "idea". It is common knowledge in history.

Sorry Pierre?
It is common knowledge that the "Sailor Description" is not accurate?

Please back that statement up.

It is certainly not common knowledge that Lawende gave inaccurate information, that is what we are talking about.



Steve

[David Orsam]

So in how many cases did they withhold descriptions of how people were dressed at the murder inquests?

Was it frequent, Steve?

Tell me this, Pierre.

How many of the murder inquests were attended by Mr Crawford on behalf of the City of London Police?

Was it frequent, Pierre?

[David Orsam]

Do you know how many types of uniforms they had in those days?

Yes, one. One for each rank within the Metropolitan Police or City Police. It was a standard issue.

No police uniform involved a cloth cap with a cloth peak.

Or are you saying that you think a cloth cap with a cloth peak was part of a police uniform in 1888?

If you could answer that simple question it would be helpful for the discussion.

[David Orsam]

What makes you think he would follow "police regulations"?

You are misunderstanding Pierre. I am not saying that I think anyone would (or would not) follow police regulations.

I am asking YOU to tell me if you agree that a police officer wearing a cloth cap would have been following police regulations or if he would have been dressed improperly according to those regulations.

It's a question to which I am still waiting for an answer.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;391470]

I don't expect Jack the Ripper to have been dressed any way at all Pierre. I am only asking you if you agree that a police officer in uniform wearing a cloth cap would have been incorrectly dressed according to police regulations. It's a simple factual question. I've asked it three times and you have evaded it every time.

What makes you think he would follow "police regulations"?

As MsWeatherwax has already pointed out, it certainly is relevant to this thread. In fact, it's hard to think of anything more relevant.

Your hypothesis is that the man seen by Lawende was dressed as a police officer right? Therefore I am asking you if you agree that he would have been incorrectly dressed if he was wearing a cloth cap as described by Lawende.

It seems to me that you avoid answering this question because you realise the fatal consequences for your hypothesis.

There are no fatal consequences, David, other than those in your head.

Do you know how many types of uniforms they had in those days?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391464]

I mean that you hint at lots but say very little.

Hi Steve,

And may I ask what "lots" is defined as, by you?

Firstly, although no detailed description was given at the inquest, one was later reported, this was the "like a sailor" description, therefore there is no reason to assume we do not know what he saw.

There is no statement about the dress of the man given by Lawende in any original primary source.

What do you mean:
"We donīt know how good Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw was."

I mean what I say and say what I mean. We (you and me for example) do not know anything (we have no scientific knowledge) about his ability to interpret what he saw.

So what do we know? We know what he said in the inquest source. And we know what some journalists wrote about what was said at the inquest.

And if we want to hypothesize about Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw, all we can do is hypothesize that he thought he saw something. Not that he did see it. What I do here is I follow Kant. But that is too radical, in a way. It is sufficient to say that Lawende had no camera with him. And as we know, even the products of a camera are interpretable (remember the discussions about the Kelly photographs for example).

Is there any reason for thinking that he could not see something and describe it?

Well, if he thought he saw a type A5 it might as well have been a type A8 which was very similar to the A5. Or it might have been a B1 type. Different types of appearances. You know, like different types of militaries. If you read the statements of Arnold, for example, what type is he describing? He changed his statements. And Lechmere, why did he lie one time and then lie again - about the same phenomenon? What can we know about this?

For me, these three events are interesting on a low level. But the events at each time and taken together have explanatory power, even if the sources are problematic. They show a pattern, although it may be spurious.

Do you have any historical reason to ask this question of this particular witness?

That is a VERY good question, Steve! As usual, you contribute. I will think about this question and try to answer it when I have something substantial to say.

I have not seen you apply this question to any other witness.

OK, so why did I not do that? Good question. Lechmere saw a woman lying on the street. Arnold heard a person telling him about a murder. Lawende did not experience an event connected to any crime at the moment he experienced the sighting. So it was not 1+1 like in the case of Lechmere (if you notice his statement) and Arnold. It was 1+0 or 0+1. (And here I happened to answer your question already!).

One is left to hypothesis that the question is asked, because the description we have, is not one you like.

Absolutely not. And as you see there was an explanation for it! (Which I wrote before I read your last two lines!).

You appear to not want to accept anything that does not fit your grand theory.

OK. If you believe so.

So we have gone from saying he was silenced, to now saying even if he was not, how can we trust what he saw?
Truly amazing!

No, that is not what I say. I say that we have the sources we have and they are of some value. But read above and you will see exactly what I mean.

That is your view, others disagree.

Of course others disagree. And thatīs fine by me.

Of course there are reason to withhold if the man was dressed like a sailor, this has been explained.

So in how many cases did they withhold descriptions of how people were dressed at the murder inquests?

Was it frequent, Steve?

However you Cannot or are not willing to even consider this view, obviously because it does not fit your theory.

Of Course, it is also possible that Lawende and friends did not actually see the killer and his victim, but another couple.

Of course. So why withhold the statement?

The reports of a man sitting, are not from the Eddowes murder, rather its from directly after the Stride killing

And people thought it was the same killer. So that would be the explanation.

What do I mean by distinctive, please stop playing games Pierre.

I will ask the question again.

Do you believe there was a description of the man seen by Lawende, which would have made identifying him easier because of the clothes he was wearing? That is what I mean by distinctive!

I see what you mean. Why would it have been "easier" because or if the dress was "distinctive"?

Maybe it was distinctive for other purposes.

Please accept there was a description given, you may not like that description but it does exist.

But Steve, the provenance is not at all clear.

And there is no statement about the dress given by Lawende in any primary original source.

So do you believe that the man was not dressed like a sailor?

I donīt think the man was dressed like a "sailor". No. Why would they withhold that in the courtroom?

So again, I ask do believe what i have just said, or you are making an hypothesis something on those lines,

What I think is based on entirely different sources. The silencing in court is just explained by those sources. And that is funny, I think. It might be spurious. But it has explanatory value, so that is why I am discussing Lawende.

If yes

Is this a direct primary source from either a witness or an official report for this line of thinking?

What is that source?

See above.

I am sorry Pierre, but my questions were very clear,
the point of my post was and remains:

Are you suggesting that the report of being dressed like a sailor is false?

You can call it "false". I say that the past leaves us with sources that we do not always understand.

Do you have a source to back such an idea?

I donīt need a source for that "idea". It is common knowledge in history.

All you have done is to evade answering the questions.

Steve

I do try to answer. And I appreciate your questions.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

There is no reason for answering an irrelevant question. And when I say irrelevant, I define it from an historical point of view. So why is it historically irrelevant? Because there is no research saying that Jack the Ripper would have been dressed in the way you expect him to have been dressed.

I don't expect Jack the Ripper to have been dressed any way at all Pierre. I am only asking you if you agree that a police officer in uniform wearing a cloth cap would have been incorrectly dressed according to police regulations. It's a simple factual question. I've asked it three times and you have evaded it every time.

As MsWeatherwax has already pointed out, it certainly is relevant to this thread. In fact, it's hard to think of anything more relevant.

Your hypothesis is that the man seen by Lawende was dressed as a police officer right? Therefore I am asking you if you agree that he would have been incorrectly dressed if he was wearing a cloth cap as described by Lawende.

It seems to me that you avoid answering this question because you realise the fatal consequences for your hypothesis.

[David Orsam]

There was no reason to withhold information if the man Lawende saw was dressed as a sailor.

How can you possibly know what was in the mind of the City of London Police solicitor and what his reasons were?

The press wrote about a sighting of a man looking like a sailor or wearing some sailorīs outfit sitting on a stair and wiping his hands, if I remember correctly. That idea could have been connected by the journalists to the lack of information about the manīs dress in court.

But Chief Inspector Swanson recorded that Lawende said the man he saw looked like a sailor so it's got nothing to do with the press getting confused.

[David Orsam]

Are you suggesting that the report of being dressed like a sailor is false?

And of course it's more than just a report; it's something we find in an "official source" namely a handwritten Swanson schedule.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

I donīt understand what you mean.

I mean that you hint at lots but say very little.

We donīt know how good Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw was. And we donīt know what he saw.

Firstly, although no detailed description was given at the inquest, one was later reported, this was the "like a sailor" description, therefore there is no reason to assume we do not know what he saw.


What do you mean:



"We donīt know how good Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw was."



Is there any reason for thinking that he could not see something and describe it?
Do you have any historical reason to ask this question of this particular witness?

I have not seen you apply this question to any other witness.


One is left to hypothesis that the question is asked, because the description we have, is not one you like.

You appear to not want to accept anything that does not fit your grand theory.


So we have gone from saying he was silenced, to now saying even if he was not, how can we trust what he saw?
Truly amazing!


You appear to not want to accept anything that does not fit your grand theory.

There was no reason to withhold information if the man Lawende saw was dressed as a sailor. The press wrote about a sighting of a man looking like a sailor or wearing some sailorīs outfit sitting on a stair and wiping his hands, if I remember correctly. That idea could have been connected by the journalists to the lack of information about the manīs dress in court.

That is your view, others disagree.


Of course there are reason to withhold if the man was dressed like a sailor, this has been explained.
However you Cannot or are not willing to even consider this view, obviously because it does not fit your theory.

Of Course, it is also possible that Lawende and friends did not actually see the killer and his victim, but another couple.



The reports of a man sitting, are not from the Eddowes murder, rather its from directly after the Stride killing

What do you mean by "distinctive" and "not as was reported later"?

What do I mean by distinctive, please stop playing games Pierre.


I will ask the question again.


Do you believe there was a description of the man seen by Lawende, which would have made identifying him easier because of the clothes he was wearing? That is what I mean by distinctive!

Please accept there was a description given, you may not like that description but it does exist.

So do you believe that the man was not dressed like a sailor?

So again, I ask do believe what i have just said, or you are making an hypothesis something on those lines,

If yes

Is this a direct primary source from either a witness or an official report for this line of thinking?

What is that source?

As soon as I know what you mean I will get back to you and answer your questions.

I am sorry Pierre, but my questions were very clear,
the point of my post was and remains:

Are you suggesting that the report of being dressed like a sailor is false?


Do you have a source to back such an idea?



All you have done is to evade answering the questions.

Steve

[MsWeatherwax]

So to conclude: From an historical perspective your expectations from 2016 are irrelevant, your descriptions - not visible in any source concerning the Whitechapel murders anywhere - are irrelevant and your definition of a person from 1888, as an ideal type (in the meaning of Weber) is irrelevant.

Pierre, are you saying that in 1888 there was not a reasonable expectation that a Police Officer would be wearing the correct uniform?

The question that David is asking has nothing to do with 'ideal types' or expectations from 2016. He's asking if you believe that a man wearing a cloth cap in 1888 would be in the correct uniform for a Police Officer of that year. It's a yes or no answer really.

[Pierre]

Pierre, I'm wondering if there is there any chance of you answering a straightforward question in this thread.

Now for the third time:

Do you at least agree that, whatever else he was wearing, a police officer wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak would have been incorrectly dressed?

There is no reason for answering an irrelevant question. And when I say irrelevant, I define it from an historical point of view. So why is it historically irrelevant? Because there is no research saying that Jack the Ripper would have been dressed in the way you expect him to have been dressed.

So to conclude: From an historical perspective your expectations from 2016 are irrelevant, your descriptions - not visible in any source concerning the Whitechapel murders anywhere - are irrelevant and your definition of a person from 1888, as an ideal type (in the meaning of Weber) is irrelevant.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391422]

Pierre,

I have been thinking about all you have been not saying in this thread, if you get my meaning?

Steve,

I donīt understand what you mean.

You seem to give the impression that the "man" seen by Lawende was wearing something which was very distinctive.

We donīt know how good Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw was. And we donīt know what he saw.

It seems clear that you believe this information was withheld.

There was no reason to withhold information if the man Lawende saw was dressed as a sailor. The press wrote about a sighting of a man looking like a sailor or wearing some sailorīs outfit sitting on a stair and wiping his hands, if I remember correctly. That idea could have been connected by the journalists to the lack of information about the manīs dress in court.

I therefore have the following to ask you:

1. Do you believe that the description was distinctive, and not as was reported later?

What do you mean by "distinctive" and "not as was reported later"?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes.

Do you have any Data source to back this up, if that is your view?

See above.

3. If the Answer to 2 is yes.

Is this a direct primary source from either a witness or an official report?

See above.

I am being specific here about any source you may be using, it needs to be official, based on a report of a witness, or a direct source from a witness.

4. If the answer to 3 is yes,.

What is that source?

As soon as I know what you mean I will get back to you and answer your questions.

Regards, Pierre